GM wants to exclusively sell electric vehicles by 2035, and it's now trying to nudge the US government toward the same goal. The automaker has teamed up with an advocacy group, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), to develop recommended principles for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) car emissions standards from the 2027 model year onward. The guidelines are meant to accelerate EV adoption in a socially conscious way — and, of course, help GM's bottom line.

The brand wants standards that ensure at least half of new vehicles sold by are zero-emissions by 2030, with a 60 percent reduction in emissions across a lineup compared to 2021. They need to address multiple pollution sources (such as CO2, nitrogen oxides and particles) and be "performance-based," GM argues. The company also believes there should be an optional pathway to speed up the launch of breakthrough emissions-reducing technology, and that standards should ensure the benefits of reduced pollution apply to everyone (such as vulnerable communities). Not surprisingly, GM hopes for tight coordination between the public and private realms, including complementary investments.

GM and the EDF want a quick decision process. They'd like the standards to be proposed this fall, and completed by fall 2023. The standards should last until 2032 at a minimum, the partners said, but they also hoped the EPA would extend that to 2035.

There might not be much opposition to the basic concept. President Biden already wants half of new vehicles to be emissions-free by 2030, and the EPA reversed Trump-era standards rollbacks in December. Meanwhile, California, Massachusetts and New York State expect to ban sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and frequently push for stricter standards than the federal government. The principles and resulting EPA standards would theoretically help politicians reach these targets sooner by encouraging manufacturers to electrify their fleets quickly.

Whether or not GM and the EDF get their way isn't clear. The EPA isn't guaranteed to take the principles to heart, and a change of presidents could lead to weaker rules. We'd add that GM has altered its stance on emissions reductions depending on who's in office. The firm backed the Trump administration's efforts to revoke waivers letting California set tougher requirements, only to change its tune after Biden won the 2020 election. Still, we wouldn't expect GM to back out any time soon. The company has staked its future on EVs, and it stands to profit if the market shifts to eco-friendly vehicles a little sooner.

The Treasury Department is keenly aware that crypto scams and hacks remain serious problems, and it's pressuring the rest of the US government to respond. As The Washington Postnotes, the Treasury has issued a report calling on other federal regulators to further crack down on scams and other illegal crypto activity. Officials want agencies to "expand and increase" investigations and enforcement, issue clearer guidance and help crypto users understand both risks and the reporting tools at their disposal.

In all cases, the Treasury asked for more coordination between government divisions. The department also asked for greater transparency on illegal activity to help spot trends in scams and other crimes.

The tougher stance is necessary given the dangers, according to the report. While proponents argue crypto can democratize financial services by making them more affordable and accessible, the Treasury found that there wasn't much evidence to support the claim. If anything, the department found that low-income households were particularly vulnerable to ripoffs — 29 percent of crypto investors had an annual income below $50,000, according to Federal Reserve Board data.

It's not clear that the findings will lead to decisive action. The Treasury didn't outline a concrete strategy for battling crypto scams and security breaches, and regulators have their own sometimes-conflicting views of how to govern digital assets. The Securities Exchange Commission sees most crypto tokens as securities it can monitor, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission unsurprisingly wants to treat tokens as commodities. Although the bureaus might not be fighting, this report doesn't do much to establish common ground.

If a traveler's phone, tablet or computer ever gets searched at an airport, American border authorities could add data from their device to a massive database that can be accessed by thousands of government officials. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) leaders have admitted to lawmakers in a briefing that its officials are adding information to a database from as many as 10,000 devices every year, The Washington Post reports. 

Further, 2,700 CBP officers can access the database without a warrant and without having to record the purpose of their search. These details were revealed in a letter Senator Ron Wyden wrote to CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus, where the lawmaker also said that CBP keeps any information it takes from people's devices for 15 years. 

In the letter, Wyden urged the commissioner to update CBP's practices so that device searches at borders are focused on suspected criminals and security threats instead of allowing "indiscriminate rifling through Americans' private records without suspicion of a crime." Wyden said CBP takes sensitive information from people's devices, including text messages, call logs, contact lists and even photos and other private information in some cases. 

While law enforcement agencies are typically required to secure a warrant if they want to access the contents of a phone or any other electronic device, border authorities are exempted from having to do the same. Wyden also pointed out that travelers searched at airports, seaports and border crossings aren't informed of their rights before their devices are searched. And if they refuse to unlock their electronics, authorities could confiscate and keep them for five days.

As The Post notes, a CBP official previously went on record to say that the agency's directive gives its officers the authority to scroll through any traveler's device in a "basic search." If they find any "reasonable suspicion" that a traveler is breaking the law or doing something that poses a threat to national security, they can run a more advanced search. That's when they can plug in the traveler's phone, tablet or PC to a device that copies their information, which is then stored in the Automated Targeting System database.

CBP director of office of field operations Aaron Bowker told the publication that the agency only copies people's data when "absolutely necessary." Bowker didn't deny that the agency's officers can access the database, though — he even said that the number was bigger than what CBP officials told Wyden. Five percent of CBP's 60,000 personnel have access to the database, he said, which translates to 3,000 officers and not 2,700.

Wyden wrote in his letter:

"Innocent Americans should not be tricked into unlocking their phones and laptops. CBP should not dump data obtained through thousands of warrantless phone searches into a central database, retain the data for fifteen years, and allow thousands of DHS employees to search through Americans’ personal data whenever they want."

Two years ago, the Senator also called for an investigation into the CBP's use of commercially available location data to track people's phones without a warrant. CBP had admitted back then that it spent $500,000 to access a commercial database containing "location data mined from applications on millions of Americans’ mobile phones."

The Federal Trade Commission is making its own bid to protect gig workers against exploitation. The regulator has adopted a policy statement detailing how it will tackle gig workers' problems. The FTC plans to step in when there are misrepresentations about pay, costs, benefits and work terms. Officials also expect to intervene with "unfair or deceptive" algorithms, harsh contracts and anti-competitive behavior such as wage fixing and monopoly-creating mergers.

The Commission said the classification of workers wouldn't affect enforcement, so companies can't avoid repercussions by classifying people as contractors instead of employees. Violators may have to pay fines and change their practices, and the FTC could partner with other government bodies (such as the Justice Department and National Labor Relations Board) to address issues.

There are gaps. It could be difficult for the FTC to prove algorithm-driven abuse, for instance, and it's not clear which non-contractual "restraints" might hurt workers' freedom of movement. However, this could still serve as a warning to gig companies that might hide steep operating costs, fight unionization efforts or collude with rivals to keep wages low.

The FTC isn't alone in hoping to improve the lot of gig workers. A bipartisan measure in Congress, introduced to the House and Senate this February, is meant to provide portable benefits to gig workers. Last year, the Labor Department revoked a rule that made it harder to protect those workers' labor rights. States and cities have also filed lawsuits and otherwise taken efforts to bolster working conditions. However, the FTC's policy provides an extra, nationwide safeguard that might further discourage attempts to exploit the gig economy.

Top executives from Meta, Twitter, YouTube and TikTok just wrapped up a three-hour hearing in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The hearing, which featured Meta CPO Chris Cox, YouTube CPO Neal Mohan, TikTok COO Vanessa Pappas and Twitter’s GM of consumer product (known as “Bluebird”), was meant to be focused on how their services impact national security issues.

Notably, the hearing is only the second time representatives for TikTok and YouTube had ever appeared at such a hearing — Meta and Twitter execs have been hauled in front of Congress far more often — and the first dedicated to security. The hearing also came one day after Twitter’s former security chief turned whistleblower told a different Senate committee that the company had been previously warned by the FBI it had a Chinese spy on its payroll. Yet not one senator on the Homeland Security Committee asked Sullivan about the allegation.

To be clear, Sullivan was unlikely to have given a substantive answer. When asked about whistleblower Peiter Zatko’s claim that Twitter lied to the FTC, he would only say that “Twitter disputes the allegations." But it was still somewhat shocking that the issue was not raised in a hearing dedicated to social media platforms' impact on national security. 

Lawmakers did, however, spend considerable time questioning Pappas on TikTok’s connections to China, which has long been a source of suspicion among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle."TikTok does not operate in China,” Pappas said more than once.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley got into a heated exchange with Pappas over whether the company has China-based employees who are members of the Chinese Communist Party. “We've said many times, Senator, that we do have Chinese engineers based in China,” Pappas said. “I don't think there's any platform up here that would be able to speak to what you're talking about as it relates to the political affiliation of an individual.” She later added that the company’s leadership team is based in the United States and Singapore.

Pappas was also asked about a BuzzFeed News story that TikTok user data had been repeatedly accessed by employees based in China. She said that “those allegations were not found,” and emphasized the company’s “strict access controls” and its work with Oracle.

The TikTok COO was also questioned about the app’s use of biometric data. “We do not use any sort of a facial, voice, audio or body recognition that would identify an individual,” Pappas told Sen. Kristen Sinema. She added that facial recognition is used for augmented reality effects in creators’ videos.

There was a lot less discussion of other security-related issues, including social media companies’ handling of domestic extremism. Committee Chairman Sen. Gary Peters pressed Cox and Mohan and why Meta and YouTube didn’t crack down on QAnon more quickly. Both side-stepped the question by focusing on their current policies. Other lawmakers chose to spend their time questioning the companies about their handling of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and other content moderation issues. 

And, as with previous hearings, the executives were often reluctant to provide specific answers even to seemingly straightforward questions. Peters repeatedly asked each executive how many engineers each company had on staff — a question he said they were notified would be coming in advance — but none would give a direct answer. “I'll be honest, I’m frustrated that chief product officers — all of you have a prominent seat at the table where these business decisions are made — were not more prepared,” Peters said. “Your companies continue to really avoid you sharing some very important information with us.”

The Los Angeles Unified School District is navigating a ransomware attack on its information technology systems. The cyberattack originated over Labor Day weekend, starting on September 3rd, though it hasn't disrupted school operations and classes are scheduled as usual. The district says in-school safety and emergency systems weren't affected by the attack, nor were employee payroll and health care networks.

LAUSD officials are already working with the Department of Education, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to uncover the source of the attack, and they've implemented protocols to protect email and other internal IT applications. The district says that while investigations into the attack are ongoing, some business operations may be delayed, but transportation, food and Beyond the Bell services won't be affected.

"Los Angeles Unified is immediately establishing a plan of action, informed by top public and private sector technology and cyber security professionals, to determine additional protections for the District, and to provide an independent opinion on system-wide protective measures," officials said.

The district says it will establish an independent information technology task force that will develop recommendations for schools within 90 days, reorganize its departments to better safeguard its IT systems, and establish advisers to oversee cybersecurity best practices, among other responses. LAUSD officials said they will provide updates on the cyberattack as investigations progress, and you can find these on Twitter.

The Biden administration has revealeddetails of how it plans to invest $50 billion into kickstarting the US semiconductor industry, a month after President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act. The Commerce Department says the funding will "revitalize the domestic semiconductor industry and spur innovation while creating good-paying jobs in communities across the country."

Over half (roughly $28 billion) of the CHIPS for America Fund has been earmarked for boosting production of logic and memory chips in the US using the most advanced processes available. The agency plans to disburse the funds through grants and loans, which will be used to build and expand facilities for making, testing, assembling and packaging chips.

The government is looking to ramp up production of older chips as well. Approximately $10 billion will go toward building semiconductors for cars, communications tech, medical devices and defense, as well as other critical commercial sectors. On top of that, the Commerce Department says $11 billion of the funding will go into research and development.

The agency plans to start accepting applications by early February. It says loans and grants will be provided on a rolling basis, as soon as it can "responsibly" process, evaluate and negotiate applications. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told The New York Times that the department could start releasing the funds as soon as next spring.

It will likely take a few years before domestic production of chips meaningfully increases, as it will take some time to build or expand semiconductor fabs. The impact of the CHIPS and Science Act, which passed with bipartisan support, could help mitigate any fallout from tensions between the US and China over Taiwan, where more than two thirds of the most advanced semiconductors are built. The Commerce Department notes that the US currently makes "zero percent" of the planet's supply of state-of-the-art semiconductors, even though many are designed in the country.

Lethal Tides tells the story of pioneering oceanic researcher Mary Sears and her leading role in creating one of the most important intelligence gathering operations of World War II. Languishing in academic obscurity and roundly ignored by her male colleagues, Sears is selected for command by the godfather of climate change, Roger Revelle, and put in charge of the Oceanographic Unit of the Navy Hydrographic Office. She and her team of researchers are tasked with helping make the Navy's atoll-hopping campaign in the Pacific a reality through ocean current analysis, mapping for bioluminescence fields and deep-water crevasses that could reveal or conceal US subs from the enemy, and cartographing the shore and surf conditions of the Pacific Islands and Japan itself.  

Harper Collins

From Lethal Tides by Catherine Musemeche. Copyright © 2022 by Catherine Musemeche. Reprinted by permission of William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

— Washington, D.C., 1943 —

Four months into her job at the Oceanographic Unit, Sears had learned a lot about what the military needed from oceanographers. She had learned it from meeting with Roger Revelle and his cohorts on the Joint Chiefs Subcommittee on Oceanography where she listened to concerns about what the navy was lacking and took detailed notes. She had learned it from answering requests from every branch of the military for tidal data, wave forecasts, and currents to support tactical operations overseas. She had learned it from gathering all the known references on drift and drafting an urgently needed manual to help locate men lost at sea. The more she took in, the more she understood exactly how dire the lack of oceanographic intelligence was and how it could undermine military operations. And now she was going to have to do something about it.

Sears was no longer at Woods Hole, where she had been sidelined by her male colleagues who sailed on Atlantis and collected her specimens while she stayed onshore. For the first time in her life, she was in charge. It was now her responsibility to set up and direct the operations of an oceanographic intelligence unit researching vital questions that impacted the war. She had never been asked to set agendas, call meetings, or give people orders, much less make sure they carried them out, but she was going to have to do those things to get the military the information they needed to win the war. She was going to have to take the lead.

To assume the role of leader, Sears would need to push through her innate reserved tendencies and any thoughts racing around in her head that screamed you don’t belong here. Taking charge of a team of oceanographers did not come naturally to a bench scientist who worked alone all day staring into a microscope, especially if that scientist was a woman, but Sears had learned from watching Revelle. He had started as an academic in a tweed jacket with elbow patches, but when the navy made him a lieutenant he took on the persona of “the man in charge.”

When Revelle walked into the conference room of the Munitions Building—tall, broad shouldered, and uniformed—he was in complete control. He spoke in a booming, decisive voice. He had an answer for every question. He solved problems. Now, thanks to the overly confident Revelle, Sears was wearing the uniform too. She had stepped into his shoes at the Hydrographic Office. She was not going to let anyone think she couldn’t fill them.

During the first year of the war there had been a mad scramble in Washington to gather information about the countries where troops might be fighting, especially distant locales like New Guinea, Indochina, Formosa, and all the tiny islands dotting the sixty-four million square miles of the Pacific Ocean. World War II spilled across the globe into places most Americans had never heard of and where the military had never been. It was unlike any other war Americans had fought.

Getting to these places would be the easy part. The navy could navigate its way to just about any far-off target anywhere in the world, thanks to the nautical charts maintained by the Hydrographic Office, but what would it find when it got there? Were the beaches flat and wide or would they be narrow, steep, and difficult to land on? Was the terrain mountainous, volcanic, or swampy? Would high winds and waves impede a smooth landing? Would they land during the rainy season? Who were the native people and what language did they speak? Were there drivable roads once troops got across the beaches?

All these details mattered because going to war was more than hauling men, tanks, rifles, and ammunition to a designated site and attacking the enemy. The troops needed to come prepared for whatever they might find, which meant knowing everything they could about an area in advance.

The military searched their files for background materials. They found spotty reports scattered among files of government agencies but no comprehensive references that spanned the globe and nothing that left them with a sense of what to expect when they went to war. The years between World War I and World War II stretched across the lean budgets of the Depression years. The military had languished along with the rest of the country—training soldiers with Springfield rifles manufactured in 1903 and using borrowed cruise liners to transport troops. With Congress keeping the purse strings tight, there had been no money to spend gathering intel for wars that might pop up one day in some remote corner of the world. The file cabinets were all but empty. As one intelligence official summed it up, “We were caught so utterly unprepared.”

What would the armed forces do now to catch up in the midst of an ongoing war?

It was a problem that had vexed Roosevelt even before the war. To help remedy the intelligence gap, he had appointed General William Donovan in mid-1941 as coordinator of information, a role that morphed into the director of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II. But Donovan too was getting a late start, and his mission was focused on espionage and sabotage, not foreign terrain.

The logical source of information for the military was its own intelligence agencies. The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the Army Corps of Engineers, and G-2, the army’s intelligence unit, had all started spinning out their own internal intelligence reports, duplicating effort and expense. But like jealous siblings guarding their toys, the agencies kept their reports to themselves, which only hampered preparations in the long run. Furthermore, these groups had not anticipated the massive landscape this war would cover and there were still many gaps to fill.

“Who would have thought, when Germany marched on Poland, that we would suddenly have to range our inquiries from the cryolite mines of Ivigtut, Greenland, to the guayule plants of Yucatan, Mexico; or from the twilight settlements of Kiska to the coral beaches of Guadalcanal. Who even thought we should be required to know (or indeed suspected that we did not know) everything about the beaches of France and the tides and currents of the English Channel,” a CIA official later mused.

That was exactly the problem: there was no predicting just what information might be needed in a war of global proportions. Whether it was knowing where to collect an essential mineral or finding the latest tidal data, the need for information, beyond just estimating enemy troop strength or weaponry, was enormous. The military leaders trying to plan the war—where to send troops first and what operations to execute when they got there—were particularly hindered. Their information needs were unfolding in real time, and without a centralized forum for gathering, collating, analyzing, and disseminating information, the United States found itself at a disadvantage in war planning.

Roosevelt began to realize the extent of the problem when he started meeting with Churchill and the British Chiefs of Staff in a series of war planning conferences. At the Arcadia Conference held two weeks after World War II began the British had the edge in strategic planning. They had operated under a system for almost two decades where the British Chiefs of Staff served as a supreme, unified command, reaping the benefits of cooperation between the Admiralty and the British Army. The United States had no such corresponding body.

Weeks after the first conference Roosevelt formed his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, a unified, high command in the United States composed of Admiral William D. Leahy, the president’s special military adviser; General George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the army; Admiral Ernest J. King, chief of Naval Operations and commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet; and General Henry H. Arnold, deputy army chief of staff for air and chief of the Army Air Corps. This impressive array of leaders could draw up battle plans, but it would take time to turn themselves into a truly cooperative body.

At the next war planning conference, at Casablanca in January 1943, Roosevelt noticed yet another fault in the American war planning apparatus—the information gap between the British and the Americans. No matter what subject came up in any corner of the world, the British had prepared a detailed analysis on the area at issue and pulled those reports out of their briefcases. The Americans weren’t able to produce a single study that could match the quality of the British reports, a failing that frustrated and embarrassed the president.

“We came, we listened and we were conquered,” Brigadier General Albert C. Wedemeyer, the army’s chief planner, shared with a colleague following the Casablanca Conference. “They had us on the defensive practically all the time.”

The British had a two-year start on the Americans in this war and they had learned the hard way about the need to collect reliable topographic intelligence. During the German invasion of Norway in 1940 the Royal Air Force Bomber Command had been forced to rely on a 1912 edition of a Baedeker’s travel guide for tourists as the sole reference in planning a counterattack. In the same offensive, the Royal Navy had only scanty Admiralty charts to guide an attack on a major port, an intelligence deficiency that could have easily doomed the mission. The British had gotten away with one in their Norway mission, but they knew they had to do better.

So they had formed the Interservices Topographical Department to implement the pooling of topographical intelligence generated by the army, navy, and the Allies, and tasked it with preparing reports in advance of overseas military operations. This was where Churchill’s reports came from and why his aides could pull them out of their briefcases when the most sensitive joint operations were being planned. To be on an equal footing with the British, the Americans needed to be able to do the same, which meant they were going to have to find a way to rectify the lack of information and fast.operations were being planned. To be on an equal footing with the British, the Americans needed to be able to do the same, which meant they were going to have to find a way to rectify the lack of information and fast.

On Thursday morning, Moscow’s busy Fili district became the site of a traffic jam unlike any before it. Motherboard (via The Verge) reports hackers used Russia’s Yandex Taxi ride-hailing app to order dozens of drivers to coverage on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, one of the city’s main thoroughfares. The act caused traffic on part of the already congested street to come to a standstill for about 40 minutes while Yandex worked to address the situation.

“On the morning of September 1st, Yandex Taxi encountered an attempt by attackers to disrupt the service — several dozen drivers received bulk orders to the Fili district of Moscow,” a Yandex spokesperson told Motherboard. In a separate statement shared with Russia’s state-owned TASS news agency, Yandex said it reworked its routing algorithm following the attack to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. The event is one of the first known instances of hackers exploiting a ride-hailing app to create a traffic jam.

Several Twitter accounts claiming affiliation with Anonymous say the hacktivist collective is behind the incident. On Friday, one Anonymous account said the group worked with the IT Army of Ukraine, a volunteer organization formed at the start of the war, to carry out the attack.

Anonymous previously claimed responsibility for a cyberattack that took down multiple Russian government websites, including those belonging to the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defence. “Faced with this series of attacks that Ukraine has been suffering from the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, we could not help but support the Ukrainian people,” the group said at the time.

Around 120,000 taxpayers who filed a Form 990-T will be hearing from the IRS in the coming weeks, telling them that the agency inadvertently exposed their information on its website. Exempted organizations, including charities and religious groups, with unrelated business income are required to file Form 990-T. As The Wall Street Journal notes, though, people with individual retirement accounts invested in assets that generate income, such as real estate, are also required to file the form. Filings by exempted organizations are supposed to be public, but those by private individuals aren't.

The agency said the issue stemmed from a human cording error last year when Form 990-T became available for electronic filing. As you can guess, the error led to the bundling of non-public data with public data, which were all made available for download. It wasn't until these past weeks that an employee discovered the issue and triggered an investigation that eventually led to the removal of the data that shouldn't have been public in the first place.

In its letter, the IRS said the leaked data included individual names and business contact information. Affected taxpayers' Social Security numbers, individual income details and other information that could impact their credit weren't made public. The Journal, which was able to download some of the data before it was removed, said it included people's income within their IRAs, as well.

Even though it has already removed the leaked data, the IRS is still reviewing the situation. The Treasury Department's Anna Canfield Roth also said that the agency "has instructed the IRS to conduct a prompt review of its practices to ensure necessary protections are in place to prevent unauthorized data disclosures."